hankyoreh

Following the sixth Trilateral Dialogue in Northeast Asia a few days ago, a participant reportedly said, "It's looking like we'll end up having to pay more if we want to keep the South Korea-United States alliance going." This dialogue, a "Track 1.5 project" combining the government and private sector, apparently saw US participants stating that they would have to make large cuts in their defense spending because of a financial deficit, and that South Korea and Japan would have to make up the difference. Already, some are predicting that the South Korean share of stationing costs for US Forces Korea will be increased to 50% from its current 40%, or about 760 billion won. A Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade official who attended the dialogue said the discussions on South Korea's share of defense costs should not be a concern, as they "accounted for less than 10% of all discussions" and were "made in passing." But they do not seem to be simply a "passing discussion" no matter how you look at them.
There is a greater chance now that astronomical costs associated with the US military base relocation to Pyeongtaek and huge USFK support costs will be added onto an already excessive contribution to common defense. Struggling under serious red ink, the US plans to cut well over one trillion dollars from its budget over the next ten years, of which 450 billion won will be national defense spending cuts. This means it will be slashing defense spending equivalent to several times South Korea's defense budget every year. Yet US officials, emphasizing Asia-focused diplomacy, are claiming that they will actually be beefing up their Asia-Pacific military strength, not cutting it. If they intend to keep the same military force, or actually strengthen it, amid these defense budget cuts, the money is going to have to come from somewhere else. The fact that US Congress decided on December 12 to cut $156 million requested by the Obama administration for the relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam bears some connection with this.
Whenever Washington has made such demands in the past, conservatives in South Korea and Japan have generally either hurried to answer them or accepted them in large point while putting on the appearance of objecting. After all, after the Ministry of National Defense said South Korea would be bearing only half the cost of the Pyeongtaek relocation, confidential documents leaked through WikiLeaks ended up showing that the true burden was 93%.
It is highly problematic for Seoul to take on additional expenses, but a more serious issue is the insecurity it will cause in East Asia as this strengthening of military cooperation among South Korea, the US, and Japan triggers concerns with Beijing and Pyongyang. This "New Cold War era" standoff among the "southern" and "northern" camps will have the effect of perpetuating the division of the Korean Peninsula and inflicting a great burden on the Korean people. We must take this opportunity to make a break with this blind faith in US military strength, which has led us to cave to its demands time and time again as it uses the slashing or withdrawal of troops as means of applying pressure.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]